Blog comments

I would comment more often but I have a gard time being respectful when it concerns this current administration.

I have never despised anything more in my 50 years on this planet.

Great site. :)

#1 Jack on 2009-11-12 08:35 (Reply)

The troll's objective in posting off-topic, hostile, intrusive, overly-personal and basically uncivilized comments is to silence your comments threads. To enable you to continue hosting commentary, you need to consider a moderator.

I believe this to be part of a loosely organized attempt to shut down comments on conservative and right-of-center blogs. Don't give in - don't surrender to the trolls.

#2 Old Salt on 2009-11-12 08:41 (Reply)

We are centrist, not right of center. I hate to shut down comments, but might have to.

#2.1 Bird Dog on 2009-11-12 08:47 (Reply)

Please forgive me for playing the role of Captain Obvious, BD, but although Maggie's Farm may be a centrist blog from your perspective, there are plenty of trolls and true believers who would classify Maggie's as a wingnut/conservative blog simply for questioning the party line.

#2.1.1 HayZeus on 2009-11-12 10:25 (Reply)

Some additional notes:

- The site rules are linked below the comment box. Also included are some general commenting tips and how to embed links, colorize the text, indent the text, and a few other goodies. While it doesn't appear so (because of the lack of control buttons), our editor can actually do a number of nifty tricks.

- Bird Dog and I discussed the language issue at length before I wrote the rules page, and the goal we're shooting for is "semi-family-friendly". While the occasional "damn" or "hell" is fine, that's about where we draw the line. And just because someone uses worse language and the post isn't deleted doesn't indicate the blogger approves. It's more likely he or she didn't read the offending comment.

- The tolerance the bloggers here show in regards to bad language and off-topicness is left completely to the individual blogger. In my case, I'll tolerate off-topic comments in my non-computer posts, but if someone starts rambling on about ObamaCare in one of my 'Computin' Tips', it's history. But, again, a blogger NOT deleting an off-topic comment is not an endorsement that it's okay to ramble on at your leisure.

If that's what you want to do, go start your own blog site. They're free and easy to set up. If you take it seriously, let us know and one of us will give you a shout-out on the home page to generate some activity. If you really get serious, we'll include you on the blogroll. Running a blog is lots of fun and there's no 'rule' that says you're obligated to blog about something every day.

#3 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2009-11-12 08:56 (Reply)

Bird Dog, and other fellow bloggers, I'll go public here....in defense of Comments and commenters.
Yes, some commenters, and some bloggers, act disrespectfully or go much too far off-topic. Their comments or replies should be excised, and admonishments delivered, even banishment.
BUT, the Comments both ways are far most usually very valuable, warm, decent, and additive.
None of us have the time to monitor, as our blogging is fit in with our lives, but losing Comments due to a VERY few would be a real shame and reduce the value of MF to its loyal readers.
Fellow bloggers, if someone comments in a way that gets your goat, you don't have to slit your own by being disrespectful back. Ignore it for what it is, or reply in a respectful way. Otherwise, we lower ourselves, and that should not be what we're about.

#4 Bruce Kesler on 2009-11-12 09:02 (Reply)

Bruce,

Agreed.
I was a reader, before, and not a commenter. But Maggie activated me, to some extent. This is a "cool" site (don't use that word often) and the posters give of their time to help make it what it is/has become. And you have an appreciative audience.

It would be a shame to lose the comments as they are part and parcel to our enjoyment.

Bird Dog took the lead and reconfirmed what Maggie's is all about. I believe he feels the comments will stay but he's given us the other side of reality and himself the option.

All one has to do is to visit some other sites and read what is a lesser standard than we can find here. I always come back to the oasis to be refreshed.

Again, my thanks to all involved

Cheers.

#4.1 Garry on 2009-11-12 11:59 (Reply)

I have found, in my visits to various sites, that commenters range from the thoughtful and respectful to Lowest Common Denominator attack dogs.

I find that the LCD types are best silenced with replies that raise the level of discussion, allowing them to dig deeper their own pit of hatred. Before long, people realize they are the fringe members of society.

I'd hate to see comments shut down, because it's important to hear what people have to say. It's unfortunate that sometimes people think that being abusive, crude and uncaring is the way to express themselves.

I would recommend removing the MOST abusive comments, but leave the ones you can. An occasional troll isn't bad for a comments section. It allows us to see where the truly damaged parts of society stand. By and large, my experience has been that the most abusive are those from the left who fear the clear vision of the intellectual right of center. That isn't to say the far right doesn't have their own trolls, but generally what they have to say is so outlandish few pay attention to them.
The left, for some unknown reason, can be angry and use derogatory language and get away with it. When our own president uses the term "TeaBaggers" to describe Tea Partiers, you know what I'm talking about. Nobody questions the clearly disgusting nature of the term Teabagging when the Left uses it.
With my friends, I once called Rachel Maddow "Rachel Madcow" and was ripped a new one for my angry and uncalled for attack on a supposedly fine woman. Their own similar comments on Glenn Beck and others of his ilk, when I pointed out the irony, were laughed off with a "well he really is evil".

That said, I feel it's important to keep comments going regardless of their nature. I keep coming back, even in the face of abusive trolls, because I know that I have a better platform than they do.

#5 Rick on 2009-11-12 09:25 (Reply)

To Maggie, the Farm Hands and fellow commentators,

Maggie's is my favourite site and I appreciate all the effort (by everyone) to make it/keep it as it is...a great place to interact with others' thoughts on a greatly diversified number of topics.

I believe we are all mature enough to accept Maggie's "open house" attitude and to respectfully roam her acreage without a guide/moderator.

I, for one, will be better at "keeping on topic"..a weakness I occasionally demonstrate.

Cheers.

#6 Garry on 2009-11-12 09:27 (Reply)

I love, love, love Maggie's Farm and pledge to comment more, as I do visit daily. I do believe that there are paid trolls out there, hoping to distract and drag down positive discussion. You can tell the difference. This election has been enlightening to me, in that I am finding more common ground between true liberals and conservatives coming to light. Many of us want to run screaming from the leftist conversation dominating our media.

If a troll appears, don't feed him. If an honest voice appears that differs from my own, I love to engage, not only to explain my thoughts, but to listen to other perspectives. Once the slimy words and bashing come in to play, we are no longer learning from each other...

Keep up the good work! I appreciate all of you!

#7 g on 2009-11-12 09:41 (Reply)

I rarely ever comment. The reason stems from the first blogs I ever read. It seems in the early days bloggers didn't want comments. Their reasoning was if you want to take up my space get your own blog. So I usually keep my opinions to myself, which is good cause I'm only imaginary smart. I agree with #7 DONT FEED TROLL'S. There seems to be a marginal group in the blogisphere that can't read or don't read what other thoughtful people wrote. They just want to voice their opinion and all others be damned. The marginal group realizes that thoughtful communication must be stopped. Otherwise their distortions will come to light and be scrutinized.

#8 Tremblin Soul on 2009-11-12 10:06 (Reply)

Relative to what has appeared here in the past, the recent comments have been quite mild. Meta did kind of loose it with Dr. Merc, but to my mind, seeing her comments get wiped clear instead of being challenged was far worse. And the same applies to off-topic, though when posts just disappear without any explanation, what do you expect? So I (obviously) need some clarification...

1) Is referring to the president as "mudboy" acceptable or not? If not, this is news to me...somewhat welcome news, but news none the less.
2) Are attacks on stupid liberals who are not here to defend their stupid ideas still OK? Calling them fascists, etc. and misrepresenting their positions is not rude or offensive, but ranting about conservatives/libertarians/whatever who are here is? Is that not how we behave at dinner parties, anyway? Guess I answered my own question there.
3) Just what kind of dinner party are we talking about? Black tie optional? Or maybe the Super Bowl party kind? Has Bernie Madoff been invited?

BTW, this place is most definitely right of center. If you think you're in the center, you definitely need to get out more. I'd really like to believe otherwise, but you is what you is. Why the need to misrepresent?

#9 KRW on 2009-11-12 10:17 (Reply)

Given the polls of political attitudes, I would call us rational Centrists. Politically normal, more or less.

#9.1 bd on 2009-11-12 12:49 (Reply)

The only polls that matter are the ones on the second Tuesday in November. Looking at what recently got elected, executive and legislative, I think your view is rather myopic. And the recent governor victories were pretty MotR. But alas, I may be going off-topic. I take it I'm one of the guilty parties...

But more on-topic, why not take up these issues directly with the responsible parties involved? You have the email addresses. This post's tactic seems rather passive-aggressive. I think I smell a shrink...oh, there you go again...

#9.1.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 13:03 (Reply)

KRW,

If I might...(don't mean to intrude)...I think the approach taken was bang on. We are free to roam Maggie's Farm at will and to our leasure and pleasure. There aren't many fences and all we have to do is close the gate behind us. I feel that BD is just making sure we know where the gates are located.

It's good to see the comments re this post. I, for one, feel refreshed.

I'm sure any contacts, that BD feels are necessary, will occur. As our host that's his call and I support his decision(s). If I don't I'm free to roam elsewhere.

Regards,

Garry

#9.1.1.1 Garry on 2009-11-12 14:27 (Reply)

Garry,
"Free to roam elsewhere"...I most definitely agree. However, the point of a comments-enabled blog is give-and-take, not just give. Just giving my 2� in feedback. If it's not appreciated, so be it.

My point is that this site itself is not afraid of making bold, controversial statements. That is one of the major points that I like about it. Agree or disagree with the statements, discussion is a good thing. But to on the one hand assert such bold sweeping statements such as "the public is wildly misinformed" or that "Doctors do not crack under stress" (just two items from randomly selected postings, I'm sure with time I could find more cutting examples), then on the other to imply that equally strong refutations of those assertions is a form of trolling (an ad hominem in itself at times) is being disingenuous. Be tough or be thin skinned, but you gotta be willing to take what you dish out.

And I might also add, if one is so concerned about propriety, maybe consider cutting back on the flesh peddling. Not that I'm averse to such things, but if you want people to behave like they're at a dinner party, don't decorate the place to look like a whore house...or am I trolling?

#9.1.1.1.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 14:51 (Reply)

KRW,

The "free to roam" was directed at myself, not you. That's the way I feel. Your $0.02 worth (I think you underestimated it) is welcomed.

I saw the troll reference as not acurately defined. I don't believe all the strong points being made (yay or nay) throughout earlier referenced comments (not re this post but the ones that made this post necessary) were all troll related. A couple of comments made reference to trolling and weren't corrected (I think we're correct on this). And I always agree that one has to be prepared to get as good as one gives!!

I think civility rather than propriety (I know they're close) is really what's being discussed here. Be friendly and civil whether we agree or not is the suggestion.

Now..re Theo's pictures...a little strong with the "w" descriptive IMO. I'm not offended. If you are, I'm sure the site can stand your opinion. And are you trolling should you make such a comment (ie anti-Theo pics)...not in the least..at least as I see it.

I have to run (be back in 8 hours) so if I don't respond it isn't because I don't want to.

Regards.

#9.1.1.1.1.1 garry on 2009-11-12 15:14 (Reply)

"Garry" is Dr. Mercury, folks.

I'll repeat that: "Garry" IS Dr. Mercury.
`

#9.1.1.1.1.1.1 Meta on 2009-11-12 19:47 (Reply)

Garry,
"The "free to roam" was directed at myself, not you"...I understood, though my post may have given the appearance otherwise. As for the pics, as I said, not offended but not the point. I think people will trend toward behaving in accordance with the environment, that's all.

#9.1.1.1.1.1.2 KRW on 2009-11-12 20:04 (Reply)

I have not read the offending comment threads; perhaps there is some troll infestation?

Having said that, there is no moderation at some of the major political sites (Politico, for example) and some of the threads there, particularly those involving Sarah Palin, would make even Bird Dog blush. So much for upscale.

Here's to hoping the comments stay open here at Maggie's Farm -- I have enjoyed them.

#10 D on 2009-11-12 10:24 (Reply)

All who take the oath of the Democrap party,promise to call someone a name and to put at least someone down once a day to maintain their membership in the party.

#11 Andy Anderson on 2009-11-12 10:49 (Reply)

BD,

Let me get to the point straightaway.

Turning off comments would effectively end MF and that would be a shame.

For commenters, here are the rules to follow. Do not write anything that you would not say to a person fact-to-face or you would not want published under your own name.

It's really that simple and it would keep things civil for the most part.

Drift in the thread, left-center-right and the like are a distraction.

As far as censorship goes, it should be minimal if commenters follow my suggestions. Extreme vulgarity and ad hominem attacks could be reasons to delete comments, which for the most part do not add value to the discussion of ideas anyway.

MF is often a point of sanity in an insane world to this libertarian. I hope you can find a way to keep it active and open.

Regards,

#12 Barrett on 2009-11-12 11:01 (Reply)

"For commenters, here are the rules to follow. Do not write anything that you would not say to a person fact-to-face or you would not want published under your own name."

Ditto, says I. Which is why I use my own name.

#12.1 Bruce Kesler on 2009-11-12 11:15 (Reply)

It would indeed be a travesty if comments were cut off. On the other hand, BD has a point.

In my years, starting with ARPA and moving on to the innertubes, discussions have always been a touchstone for anynomous commentary. After all, a primary definition of anynomous is "lacking individuality, unique character, or distinction". In a perverse way, this very lack of distinction allows for noticably inappropriate and excessive verbiage because it cannot be directly attributable or identifiable. It allows the mental editor to shut down and allow the id to flow unhindered without the filter of ego and superego. It's a pleasure thing - I do it because I can and damn the consequences because there aren't any.

I agree with Bruce - it's the main reason I use my own name because I woudn't want my integrity damaged by a free form rant. :>)

One last comment if I may. I have lurked at Maggie's for a long time and found that, as a community, it is rational, enlightening and competently produced. The commentary is part and parcel of this high quality "gestalt" which, in my opinion, cannot be harmed by occasional intemperate and inappropriate remarks.

And I feel a rant coming on so I shall retire and take a nap.

Naps are always in order. :>)

#12.1.1 Tom Francis on 2009-11-12 12:00 (Reply)

While I stand by what I wrote, I cherish the anonymity. In my hard-copy life, I have been subjected to some rather vicious ad hominem attacks over the years for standing up against some millionaires who saw my HOA as their personal piggy bank. I spare you the details. Because of that hard-copy experience, I try for reasoned civility and avoidance of ad hominem attacks- not always successfully- in my online posting.

#12.1.2 Gringo on 2009-11-12 12:38 (Reply)

Question for the posters at MF: Would you derive satisfaction from blogging if there was no feedback? Wouldn't that just amount to shouting out into the void? I know I am not the deepest thinker that comments here and sometimes I wonder if I come across as a troll because I don't agree with everything posted here, but I have always thought that getting feedback and stimulating conversation was the purpose of blogging. As for going off topic, if it is tangentially related to the post I don't see a problem with it. As for swearing, what are there, 700,000 words in the English language? I would think that the commenters here are smart enough to come up with alternative words to describe their thoughts.

#13 feeblemind on 2009-11-12 11:40 (Reply)

We got no beef with you, Feeble.

#13.1 bd on 2009-11-12 12:50 (Reply)

I enjoy Maggie's Farm so much and I'm sorry now that I don't comment more frequently. MF is a part of my daily reading and I look forward to it each and every day. I try to link to or hat tip y'all frequently, for what it's worth. I'll try to do better in the future.

Meanwhile, keep doing what you're doing. Illegitimi non carborundum, as the kids say these days.

#14 Sarah (Link) on 2009-11-12 11:41 (Reply)

Please don't eliminate comments; it would ruin the site. If you have to delete the occasional troll eruption, so be it.

#15 Texan99 on 2009-11-12 11:45 (Reply)

Me, I just interject the occasional witticism

Love Maggie's Farm tho...keep it up!

#16 model_1066 on 2009-11-12 11:47 (Reply)

Compared to other sites, I have observed very little trollish behavior here. Most of the trolls are of the drive by variety: one or two comments and gone. ( And it could be argued that only one or two comments do not make a troll.) I cannot recall a troll of the variety who would continually "engage" with one absurd reply after another. While there is often extended back and forth among regular commenters, this is of the interchange, not troll, variety.

Some months back, I and another commenter got rather hot under the collar at each other. The disagreement was related to the thread topic. Here is how I ended up handling it: Five Suggestions for Ineffective Blog Postings. I cooled off for a day before composing it.

#17 Gringo on 2009-11-12 12:15 (Reply)

This seems to be happening a lot lately... this "trolling for shock and awe". At least three of the jeep forums I participate in have banned users, deleted and locked threads. The actions seem to be rampant on the internet these days, civility is disappearing. What gives? Is it the season change? What?

#18 JoeC on 2009-11-12 12:58 (Reply)

The social dynamics problem isn't trolls but responders to trolls.

#19 rhhardin (Link) on 2009-11-12 13:19 (Reply)

rhhardin,

Point taken. I normally ignore but, if a measured resopnse is considered, I will set my own benchmark, not be moved away from it and await the trolls departure. 'They' get bored when their manipulation tactic is neutralized. It's also a good way to deal with bullies as well.

JMO.

Cheers.

#19.1 Garry on 2009-11-12 13:48 (Reply)

Other sites I frequent have occasional trolls. The 'community' tends to disregard the more flagrant abusers and sometimes will reply to the posts. It is a tactic to smother discussion. Please leave your comments open but expect even those disagreeing to meet the rules. Not everyone has to agree with you but they should respect you. Do not be silenced as that is their aim. It is a prevalent among those that desire no opposition to their beliefs.

#20 Prairie Boy on 2009-11-12 13:35 (Reply)

I vote with most of the commenters here that Maggiesfarm�s very
civilized site is one of the constant joys of my day. And part of the joy for me is reading [and contributing] to the comments. I feel like I've discovered a whole troop of friends of like minds. But Bruce is right about one important thing ... well, actually two. We should always remember to address those with whom we disagree courteously, even if firmly. I'm sure we have all, in the course of our own lives, had troublesome dinner guests, or even discussion partners in a debate. While we privately might have wanted to strangle them for spoiling the party, it's better not to. They can be shut down by changing the direction of the discussion or presenting a convincing alternative.

The other thing Bruce said that I agree completely with, is that he signs his own name to his opinions. So do I. One of my flaws is that I'm passionate in my convictions, and I just know that if I used a screen name I might go over the top on some subjects. Signing my own name acts as a brake on my expressions. The Internet is 'forever' in some ways. Things you say today which seem reasonable to you could possibly come back to bite you in the butt 10, 15, or even 20 years from now. Who knows who and what the 'powers that be' will be by then. Being 'convicted out of one's own mouth' is scant comfort when the 'hostiles' take their revenge. Paranoid much? Oh, yes, sometimes, and with good reason.

So, maggiesfarmers, please continue with your very civilized site. And we'll try to help by guarding our tongues.

Marianne

#21 Marianne Matthews on 2009-11-12 13:44 (Reply)

Marianne,

I know...I've said it before...

"As always...well said" and good points all round. I was raised to stand up and be counted if I should wish to make a point/comment.

I've chosen to use my first name only. No particular reason...that's just the way I do it. Last name available upon reasonable request.

Cheers.

#21.1 Garry on 2009-11-12 14:35 (Reply)

You're not getting the full story folks. As one who has witnessed in real time the above mentioned deleted posts over the last week, the issue here is not trolls, nor excessively harsh language, nor intemperate remarks. It is also not one of...

"off-topic, hostile, intrusive, overly-personal and basically uncivilized comments which have forced me to delete a couple of nice posts because of the obnoxious and immature comment threads"

The issue here is one of unstated and highly malleable standards that shift in focus depending on the mood of the editor. Maturity is in the eye of the beholder.

I've witnessed comment deletions of both readers' comments and bloggers comments. I've witnessed snide and threatening remarks based on the email address of a certain female commenter made by one of the male bloggers. Said male blogger deleted his threatening comment when challenged and then deleted the female reader's comments. I've witnessed spurious allegations and downright untruthfulness... all later deleted.

The blog states in the "Site rules and comment area tips", "this is a morally upright site and any malevolence will be removed immediately.". Yet then allows the following to remain for all to see:

"But, as you said, it turned out quite entertaining, and especially when you-know-who arrived. Jack Daniels and psychotropic drugs really don't mix very well, do they?"

That is about as "off-topic, hostile, intrusive, overly-personal and basically uncivilized comments" as one might witness. Yet it remains, on a thread in which a number of original comments have been deleted to the favor of said blogger.

In short, comments have been so deconstructed that few of us have a clue about the 'real' issue here. We just get vague warnings and appeals to civility.

There is a vendetta going on here folks, an orchestrated attempt by a certain blogger to marginalize, delegitimize and ruin the reputation of one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters. This effort has been facilitated by the editor, who, in fact, summarily deleted a personal plea for help by this person when it became apparent that said blogger had used Maggie's Farm to find out who she is, where she lives and other private information. Knowing Meta and her insistence on truth, she has probably sought help elsewhere by now in order to remedy this situation.

#22 Luther on 2009-11-12 14:49 (Reply)

Luther,
I've been reading Maggies Farm for a long time. This is a favorite site. I very much doubt the veracity of the accusations.

Must admit I do not like commenters that feel it is necessary to belittle or demean the bloggers and the other commenters regarding religious belief, profession, integrity, intelligence, etc. etc.

One question, if I may. If this blog is as terrible as you say, why still here? There are lots of other blogs.

#22.1 concrete on 2009-11-12 16:55 (Reply)

Appreciate the opportunity to answer your question, concrete. Where did I make such a broad judgment as to say MF is terrible? That's not the case and I've never inferred it was I don't believe. Most of my misgivings are very narrowly based. And as you'll see below, I've been coming here for a long time myself, like the place, otherwise wouldn't be here. And of course, feel free to doubt the veracity of anything I say. But I'm not known for making things up, or at least I don't believe I am.

#22.1.1 Luther C. McLeod on 2009-11-12 18:29 (Reply)

Hey, speaking of trolls -- here he is now!

(fanfare of trumpets, spotlight hits the ring)

Luther -

A few points:

- BD deleted those original nasty comments left by you-know-who. I deleted the later ones, including yours.

- All I know about you-know-who is that she's female (I'm pretty sure), is probably 60 to 70 years old (given the direct memories she's shared with Marianne), and I know her email address because it's included in the email I get notifying me a comment has been left. I also have this half-feeling that she lives in Florida from something she said once. I think that's it.

- As far as her being "one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters", here's what she said that kicked the whole thing off:

"Don't fuck with me, you simpleton!"

This was after, of course, her calling me moronic, an idiot, and my post asinine.

So I responded by calling her an "old biddy" and that's when she left the "personal plea" for Bird Dog, claiming I was "threatening" her.

And then suddenly, in a Zero Mostel post, of all places, you show up.

You guys want to hear some fun stories about Luther?

"Of course, Unca' Doc!"

Me, too! Well, it was really amazing, but back about a year ago, when I was posting regularly, every time Meta lost it in the comments and attacked me, ol' Luther was right there within minutes to stand by her side.

Now we fast-forward a year and in all the posts I've written over the past few months, Luther hasn't shown his head once. Suddenly, in my 'Definition' post the other day, Meta starts slandering me (see above) and here I am, trying to be nice to the old crone, asking her "Please explain what you mean", trying to be polite, all to no avail.

And guess who suddenly shows up?

Yep, there's ol' Luther, staunchly by her side.

So then I call the old dingbat a horrible, cruel, terrible, mean, evl word like "biddy" and Ms. Crybaby leaves this long, incoherent rant in poor BD's post about Zero Mostel.

And guess who shows up?

That's right -- within minutes of me responding to her heartfelt plea with a short, polite comment trying to allay her fears that I was 'stalking' her, there's ol' Luther.

In a day-old Zero Mostel post, of all places.

Amazing, eh?

Now, as to his credibility, Luther is a self-confessed sockpuppet. That's someone who logs on with a fake name. Sometimes it's done to support something their first personna has said ("You're so smart!"), and other times it's to make the blogger feel like the commenters are 'ganging up' on him in disagreement.

In this case, Meta had mentioned that she was a Mac user, so naturally I immediately had to kid her as PC'ers and Mac users have done since the dawn of time.

She was livid!

She took all the kidding at face value. At the time, I didn't know how old she was, but in retrospect I'd have to guess that she was simply unaware of the good-natured banter that had existed between the two groups over the years.

Suddenly -- you guessed it! It's Luther!

But this time Luther brought a friend. Not only did he show up, but so did "Buck". Both, amazingly, lambasting me about the horrible, cruel things I'd said to someone who many call "one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters".

Now, I knew if I just accused him straight out of sockpuppeting, he'd deny everything. This, despite the fact that Luther and Buck coincidentally shared the same IP address.

So I accused him of sockpuppeting Meta.

He was so overjoyed at my being wrong that he blurted out, "I wasn't Meta, you idiot, I was Buck!"

Bwah-hah!

Now, there's a small irony to all this. Meta firmly believes with all her heart that I make up all the commenters in my posts. Lucky for you guys, BD made this post, so I think you're safe.

So consider the irony of a self-confessed sockpuppet supporting someone accusing me of sockpuppeting. :)

Hopefully, though, problems like these will soon be a thing of the past. The webmaster is looking at the software to see if the individual bloggers can keep certain people (done by IP address) from commenting in their posts. A friend emailed me a list and apparently someone (I wouldn't want to mention any names, but many call her "one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters") has left similar nasty comments in recent posts by Opie, Dr. Bliss and Barrie, so I'm sure they'll want to get in on the action.

Blogging sure is fun, huh?

#23 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2009-11-12 16:34 (Reply)

Whew! well now THAT was mature. Damn, now I'm doing it meself.

Guess we'll have to take your word for it, as the Zero post has apparently been reduced to NULL also. Look, Meta-turned-Habu (maybe it's the four-letter names? L-e-a...never mind) went over the top (I'll try not to misspell 'lose' again) and said some fairly nasty things. And yes, she has lost it before at times, but there are ways to respond without responding in kind...or worse, stifling.

And Luther, if you actually used a sock puppet, I'm quite surprised. Shame(?) and shame that the post isn't there so we can judge for ourselves. Of course, Dr. M might consider the admittedly unlikely and wild possibility that while the IP addresses are the same, it is possible the user was not. But I suppose we have to take your word for it. Of course it also belongs in the context of the above post.

Trolling, trolling, trolling,
keep those bloggies trolling...
..don't try to understand 'em,
just rope, tie, and brand 'em...

again, with the off-topic...

#23.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 16:57 (Reply)

Hmm...my post got "lost"...

I was trying to say (and let's see if this goes through, need to copy these things before posting now) your post here Dr. M. is itself low on the maturity scale. And with the Zero post reduced to NULL it's hard to judge for ourselves. And Luther, if you used a sock puppet, I'm quite surprised.

#23.2 KRW on 2009-11-12 17:01 (Reply)

Sorry, but I'm double posting this, for context.

KRW, I did use a different nic for a short while, I'm guilty. But in my defense, as noted in my new post, it was a pretty common thing to do back in the day, for lots of folks. But it wasn't done by me for reasons of self-aggrandizement. So... I fall on my sword, dear sir.

#23.2.1 Luther C. McLeod on 2009-11-12 18:38 (Reply)

Hey, speaking of trolls -- here he is now!

(fanfare of trumpets, spotlight hits the ring)

Luther -

Nice beginning, Doc. You're such a warm and friendly guy. Hey folks, anyone out there believe I'm a troll? Let's see, probably starting my fourth year at MF, perhaps even longer and I don't believe I have ever had the 'honor' of being called a troll. So congrats, Doc. Your astute powers of observation have again served you well.

A few points:

- BD deleted those original nasty comments left by you-know-who. I deleted the later ones, including yours.

Actually, it really doesn't make all that much difference who deleted what. The fact that things were deleted in such a way as to leave Meta in a bad light is really the point. I mean, do you have such a good explanation for deleting your own comments, like the one where you asked Meta if her email address was current. And oh, how about the larger point I addressed as to what and what is not allowable as part of the 'civilized' discourse we engage in here. You know, the one where you said "Jack Daniels and psychotropic drugs really don't mix very well, do they?".

- All I know about you-know-who is that she's female (I'm pretty sure), is probably 60 to 70 years old (given the direct memories she's shared with Marianne), and I know her email address because it's included in the email I get notifying me a comment has been left. I also have this half-feeling that she lives in Florida from something she said once. I think that's it.

Did you or did you not ask Meta if her email address was current, or something close? Your comment was up such a short time I didn't get a chance to memorize it.

- As far as her being "one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters", here's what she said that kicked the whole thing off:

"Don't fuck with me, you simpleton!"

This was after, of course, her calling me moronic, an idiot, and my post asinine.

Yep, Meta can get testy. Especially when she slips on a new pair of stiletto heels. Until she gets them broken in with a few sharp stomps she can be a bit cranky. Too bad you caught her on one of those days. But really, this brings up my comment about the malleability of standards around here lately. If cussing is now going to be enforced, that's fine. Just that there has been no consistency in the past.

So I responded by calling her an "old biddy" and that's when she left the "personal plea" for Bird Dog, claiming I was "threatening" her.

Was there anything now considered a violation of blog standards in Meta's, as you term it, personal plea? As I remember it was pretty straight forward, with no cussing, nor insults of a personal nature. Maybe you could repost it here so that folks could judge for themselves how Meta might have perceived that you were threatening her. If you need a copy I just happen to have one and can easily place it here myself, just ask, I'd be happy to do so.

And then suddenly, in a Zero Mostel post, of all places, you show up.

Yep, again. I showed up. And even though I don't recall the use of any foul language, and only slight use of personal attack the entire post was deleted. Poor Zero. Oh, I also have a copy of that comment thread if you'd like to post it up so folks can make their own judgments. You're welcome I'm sure.

You guys want to hear some fun stories about Luther?

"Of course, Unca' Doc!"

Me, too! Well, it was really amazing, but back about a year ago, when I was posting regularly, every time Meta lost it in the comments and attacked me, ol' Luther was right there within minutes to stand by her side.

Funny Doc, most folks would see that as a positive thing. My giving Meta an assist from time to time. And of course you conveniently fail to mention that you did a fair amount of attacking yourself way back when. Before you donned your new 'cheerful all the time' persona.

Now we fast-forward a year and in all the posts I've written over the past few months, Luther hasn't shown his head once. Suddenly, in my 'Definition' post the other day, Meta starts slandering me (see above) and here I am, trying to be nice to the old crone, asking her "Please explain what you mean", trying to be polite, all to no avail.

And guess who suddenly shows up?

Yep, there's ol' Luther, staunchly by her side.

Again, even with the new comment policy, you just can't resist, can you Doc. Such a pleasant way to refer to someone, "slanderer", "old crone". Especially so, when if Meta were to attempt to defend herself she would likely find her comment deleted leaving folks wondering... huh?

So then I call the old dingbat a horrible, cruel, terrible, mean, evl word like "biddy" and Ms. Crybaby leaves this long, incoherent rant in poor BD's post about Zero Mostel.

Let's see. "Dingbat", 'Biddy", "Crybaby", "incoherent". My, what a nice new policy we have here, sure has cleaned up the joint already.

And guess who shows up?

That's right -- within minutes of me responding to her heartfelt plea with a short, polite comment trying to allay her fears that I was 'stalking' her, there's ol' Luther.

In a day-old Zero Mostel post, of all places.

Amazing, eh?

And so what, Doc? Am I only to appear when 'you' would like me to do so? Only read certain comments? Last I heard freedom of association was an okay thing. And oh, Doc, that stalking thing you keep mentioning, what IS that all about? Any comments you could repost so as to let folks judge for themselves? Again, if you need a hand I think I can help you out.

Now, as to his credibility, Luther is a self-confessed sockpuppet. That's someone who logs on with a fake name. Sometimes it's done to support something their first persona has said ("You're so smart!"), and other times it's to make the blogger feel like the commenters are 'ganging up' on him in disagreement.

You seem to forget, Doc. Changing nics used to be a common occurrence around this place, wasn't so much a matter of sockpuppetry as a way to joke around and make a fool of oneself without any one knowing who the author was. I can probably find quite a few people who remember those days, I'll ask around if like.

In this case, Meta had mentioned that she was a Mac user, so naturally I immediately had to kid her as PC'ers and Mac users have done since the dawn of time.

She was livid!

Dang, Doc. You have a good memory don't you. But you know what, I don't remember things happening quite like you describe. And you know, I'd go back and find all those comments, just for ol' times sake, but shucks, turns out they were all deleted at the time. How strange is that. Almost seems like a pattern is forming here.

She took all the kidding at face value. At the time, I didn't know how old she was, but in retrospect I'd have to guess that she was simply unaware of the good-natured banter that had existed between the two groups over the years.

Suddenly -- you guessed it! It's Luther!

But this time Luther brought a friend. Not only did he show up, but so did "Buck". Both, amazingly, lambasting me about the horrible, cruel things I'd said to someone who many call "one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters".

Now, I knew if I just accused him straight out of sockpuppeting, he'd deny everything. This, despite the fact that Luther and Buck coincidentally shared the same IP address.

So I accused him of sockpuppeting Meta.

He was so overjoyed at my being wrong that he blurted out, "I wasn't Meta, you idiot, I was Buck!"

Bwah-hah!

Well darn, Doc. You finally got me. Matter of fact I do remembered making that embarrassing mistake, it's a heck of a thing when you forget who you are. But again, see my comment above about 'changing nics'.

Now, there's a small irony to all this. Meta firmly believes with all her heart that I make up all the commenters in my posts. Lucky for you guys, BD made this post, so I think you're safe.

So consider the irony of a self-confessed sockpuppet supporting someone accusing me of sockpuppeting. :)

Now wait, Doc. I don't remember ever calling you a sockpuppet. When did I do that? Or wait, do you have me mixed up with someone else? Oh well, sweet irony catches us all at one time or another.

Hopefully, though, problems like these will soon be a thing of the past. The webmaster is looking at the software to see if the individual bloggers can keep certain people (done by IP address) from commenting in their posts. A friend emailed me a list and apparently someone (I wouldn't want to mention any names, but many call her "one of the site's smartest and most observant commenters") has left similar nasty comments in recent posts by Opie, Dr. Bliss and Barrie, so I'm sure they'll want to get in on the action.

Yep, that's a solution for sure. Y'all just go ahead and wall yourselves off from viewpoints and opinions that might make y'all a little uncomfortable. Why that says a lot right there, don't it?

Blogging sure is fun, huh?

It sure is, Doc. I'm glad we were able to have this little conversation, maybe it will give folks a little something to think about.
.
#23 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2009-11-12 16:34 (Reply)

#23.3 Luther C. McLeod on 2009-11-12 18:22 (Reply)

This is extremely interesting. I need to read more, but, Luther, I have that attack on me by Dr. Mercury when I mentioned I have a Mac. I have saved most of the posts and comments.
`

#23.3.1 Meta on 2009-11-12 20:15 (Reply)

Do you like to argue for the sake of argument so you can show someone you know just a little bit more than they do?

It sure seems that way to me. Who in their right minds would respond to you?

It can be annoying. Sometimes you make good points. Sometimes your responses are picayune and bullying.

Signing off!

#23.4 Barrett on 2009-11-13 00:18 (Reply)

So I should let Mercury's slander of me stand with no rebuttal? Not my way, Barrett. I highly suspect not yours either, should the shoe be on the other foot.

#23.4.1 Luther on 2009-11-13 09:34 (Reply)

Luther,

Not my way either!

My comment was directed at Dr. Mercury.

#23.4.1.1 Barrett on 2009-11-13 20:46 (Reply)

Thank you for clarifying. That means a lot in the present environment.

#23.4.1.1.1 Luther on 2009-11-13 21:51 (Reply)

I read Maggies Farm every day but, like many others, do not comment nor read the comments. I have discovered that many blog comments sections are cesspools of idiocy and profanity. But I enjoy this blog enough that I shall wade into the comments and, if necessary, hold my nose.

#24 Debbie on 2009-11-12 16:35 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm is my preferred source of news, information, opinion, and feedback; I am a 3 or 4X daily visitor. Better even than Drudge. I agree - never sink to the level of a declasse Daily Kos, a site operating in the lowest depths of the left wing sewer.

By comparison, Maggie's posts and links cover a wide range of fascinating topics, especially current events and major issues of the day. I can't say enough good things about the site and have recommended it to many friends and colleagues.

As for the freedom of speech debate, I prefer to see discussions conducted on a passionate but civilized level. Collectively, if you will pardon the near-vulgar expression, the Maggie's Farm crew of contributors and commenters is one helluva knowedgable, well educated, passionate and diverse group. Long live Maggie's Farm!

#25 greenmtnpunter on 2009-11-12 16:43 (Reply)

Very well put, greenmtnpunter! I concur wholly. I remember the first time I came here and read the banner at the top- it took my breath away. "Sounds like ME!!"

I may comment rarely, but I visit every day - many things I find here are unique. I will try to add to the conversation a bit more.

Thanks for everything, Susan Lee

#25.1 Susan Lee on 2009-11-12 19:09 (Reply)

I watched "A Nice Little Dinner Party" on tv many years ago but never been to one like it.

#26 Leag on 2009-11-12 17:06 (Reply)

Ahh, the classic Bewitched episode where Mr. Stephens, Sr. fell for Endora. So which do you think was the superior Darrin, Dick York or Dick Sargent?

#26.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 17:34 (Reply)

Mr. York was me favorite one.

However I liked Mama witch, Endora.

Unlike Ma @ Maggie's Farm, she could get the floors done with a flick of her wrist.

It's a shame the way Ma makes me scrub the floor. before the dinner parties.

#26.1.1 Leag on 2009-11-12 18:13 (Reply)

dame biatch fines you every time you slam the door, too. Oops, I did it again...

#26.1.1.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 19:34 (Reply)

Over the past year or so I've written maybe a half-dozen posts here, commenting on various articles.

Every one of my comments was polite, completely free of invective and four letter words, and I made no personal attacks.

Only one of those posts ever made it into the comments. I wonder why that is?

I was especially disappointed that one of my posts, which I'd spent a lot of effort and time on, appeared for only a few minutes � and then disappeared. My comment concerned the difference between the Puritans and the Mayflower Pilgrims, and the effect each group had on the development of the American character. I had just finished an American History class, and the differences were fresh in my mind. But my post was deleted, and I don't know why.

I enjoy commenting on occasion, and I enjoy this site. But I would sure like to know why my polite and reasonable comments have disappeared, or were never posted.

[I'm a moderator on another site that gets far more traffic than Maggie's Farm. We do our best to allow all reasonable comments. If someone posts an unacceptable comment, we leave the name and replace the crankiness in their comment with: "[snip]". That way, the person posting at least knows that their comment was received.]

It's very frustrating when comments are removed shortly after appearing, or simply deleted without any acknowledgment or reason given.

#27 Smokey on 2009-11-12 18:07 (Reply)

I can't take credit for saying this because someone has said it before. " It is an honor to sit at this table" Hell, I'm happy to stand and pick up the nuggets of wisdom and knowledge that fall on the floor.

KRW, I liked Dick York. Glade to hear you like to drink Irish wine. I like Jameson too, but my favorite is Jack.

#28 jappy on 2009-11-12 18:16 (Reply)

Jack? As in Daniels? As in Bourbon? Disappointing since they dropped from 90 proof. Definitely a fave of mine back in the day.

#28.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 20:09 (Reply)

KRW, I did use a different nic for a short while, I'm guilty. But in my defense, as noted in my new post, it was a pretty common thing to do back in the day, for lots of folks. But it wasn't done by me for reasons of self-aggrandizement. So... I fall on my sword, dear sir.

#29 Luther C. McLeod on 2009-11-12 18:36 (Reply)

NP the Mr. McLoud. The Dr.'s long post, I lost track of the time context. Refers back to an MF age when things were far more nasty than they are today, so context is everything. Thus the shifting standards. The H got far more leash (too much, imo, but hey, I should get my own site) than M just got. And he was a sock puppet factory, too. Covert and overt, but such was his style. Kind of miss him, in a Howard Cosell kind of way. Now there's a thought, Howard Cosell as Darrin. Wouldn't that have been a kick...

Oh well, the eagle flies on Thursday this week and I hear Mr. Jameson calling...BTW, which of you jappy/jephnol are properly reformed (sorry I get you mixed up)? I'll gladly have one for you. Oh, hell, I'll have one for the both of you, just to be sure.

#29.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 19:53 (Reply)

Thank you KRW for having one for me, and Jephnol.
Are you like me, in that you change the color of your fluids for the seasons? Amber for Fall and Winter. Clear ( Belvedere, Gray Goose) for Spring and Summer. I don't think I'm properly reformed. My crazy Kraut, Mick, Scot wife is trying to limit my intake of Jack. There goes my civility.

I'm going to have one for you too!

#29.1.1 jappy on 2009-11-12 20:29 (Reply)

Jappy,
Well, not quite that granular, but yes. i talk with Mr. Belvedere pretty much once a weekend, regardless. Come winter, I call on my darker friends more regularly. Summer is mostly beer. I must say Mr. Jameson is a more recent acquaintance, as I ran out of scotch about the time our skirt wearing cousins decided to let the Lockerbie bomber go home. I figured being 1/32 Irish, it made more sense to switch to keep it in the family so to speak. A "friend" pointed out that I must be more comfortable with terrorists than terrorist sympathizers. I've given this much thought lately, and in a way, it may be true...

Oooh, much more of this and we're gonna invite the ire of Maggie. Well, I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them...I heard that somewheres...

#29.1.1.1 KRW on 2009-11-12 20:58 (Reply)

It appears, Jappy, that Meta has been banned from the site. Banned, in my opinion, for being a woman, a woman who speaks her mind. Some 'men' are extremely threatened by such a woman. It is a shame that the blog has apparently become subject to Mercury's influence. A bad move in my opinion. Meta has been a loyal commenter here for over three years, bought many of us amusement and laughter and insight from her thoughtful and experienced comments. She has been unfairly portrayed, unable to defend herself, and now suffers the final humiliation. It's bull**it you know. And it takes a special breed to not be able to withstand a few pointed comments in rebuttal of their thought. Just wanted to let you know, as if Meta is gone, I'm gone.

#29.1.1.2 Luther on 2009-11-12 21:14 (Reply)

KRW, please see my comment to Jappy below. Take care of those turtles, would you.

#29.1.2 Luther on 2009-11-12 21:16 (Reply)

KRW, I once again misplaced my comment.

#29.1.2.1 Luther on 2009-11-12 21:17 (Reply)

Sorry to hear that Lex, you will both be missed here by me, and I'm sure others. I sensed this coming on and I must say I feel similarly and am inclined to some degree to join you. But I'm just slightly more inclined to stick around. Someone has to stick up for Leag in case he gets banned too...plus I gotta watch out for Yertle and the boys, iykwim.

Before you go completely, let us know what other blog sites where you might hang. And I suspect you might know where Meta might hang too. I've taken to David Thompson's and Harry Hutton's "Chaise me ladies". And in the odd chance that things get too petty and you get blocked, you can email me at kurtrweaver@yahoo.com (and that's also for the MFers who wanna make an issue of handles).

#29.1.2.2 KRW on 2009-11-12 21:37 (Reply)

Thanks, KRW. I've seen you over at David's. First class he is.

Sticking up for Leag... you're a good one for humor.

I'm not gone completely as yet. I'm awaiting confirmation from someone that Meta has indeed been banned. It does seem that way at this time.

It's the injustice of it all that gets to me, and to Meta as well. Every word in that banner is a lie, essentially. I thought I had grown out of my old granny's saying, never trust a Yankee, but she was right, perhaps.

Hope you're reading as this might get deleted quickly....

lcm@comcast.net

Be more than happy to hear from you. Oh, discardedlies.com.

#29.1.2.2.1 Luther on 2009-11-12 21:49 (Reply)

By the bye, New England Yankee's how come ya keep lettin' Ma a Pa loose if'n yall ain't workin' fer her no more?

She's got the dog's in a tither and a dither.

Grow a pair.

#30 Leag on 2009-11-12 18:40 (Reply)

It'd be a shame to lose the comments here at Maggie's. This is one of my favorite daily reads and the comments are a big part of what makes this site a gem.

#31 Jephnol (Link) on 2009-11-12 19:18 (Reply)

I don't comment much anywhere but here at MF it is sort of like home. I like your politics, I farm, love Dylan, nature, hunting and appreciate your literary and historical posts. Also live in the northeast so the New England perspective is one I'm comfortable with. I feel like you're my neighbors sometimes.

#32 linda s on 2009-11-12 19:30 (Reply)

Thanks for a great site. My favorite by far and has been for a couple years now. The comments are a big plus; very enlightening & entertaining.
p.s. If you guys are centrist, I need to re-calibrate.

#33 rayc on 2009-11-12 21:51 (Reply)

if gatekeeping in real time is impractical and individuals cannot repect the rules/guidelines (because it's all choice)... ignore it, go toe-to-toe in the most courteous but decisive fashion (at your own risk) or appeal for a cutting of another's posting privilege for flagrant abuse. or ignore it.

maggie's is my best window - i don't have a tv.
i don't want a tv. i ain't goin' to watch tv on maggie's farm.

and in the beginning... flamers gnashed their teeth.

#34 johnnyonline on 2009-11-12 22:07 (Reply)

Love Maggie's, always have. My favorite blog, bar none. Some smart and funny commenters too, some friends.

It would be a pity to turn off comments. The blogs I like don't just opine definitively, or hit and run, or link briefly (the pundit mode suits my spouse more than me--is it a guy thing??), but spark discussion.

I commented here for years, often at great and tedious length until I started my own blog. But in the last year or two hardly ever comment any more, because of ad hominems by She Who Must Not Be Named. Two other blogs that seem to attract such types are Furious Seasons and Dr. Helen's. Don't know why.

Like mold, once it starts, and there's not a lot a blogger can do short of bleach and sunlight. Moderating comments seems a bad idea, generally, as one wonders if all the comments by someone disagreeing with the person posting will make it thru? The warning today seems reasonable.

I think the reason many people (myself included sometimes) will comment once or twice and vanish is that one is interested in the initial post or some perceptive comment on it, one comments, then notices that some of the other comments are way out there, or that a thread has become something of a private conversation that one has interrupted. So one leaves, just as one would at a party if one realized that two or three people were deep in private, not general discussion.

On my own blog, my rule is that I will instantly delete any personal attack on other commenters (no matter how brilliant the rest of the comment). Haven't ever had to do it. My commenters are friendly and like each other, despite having conflicting opinions at times.

Other commenters have noted that people here used to comment under a variety of pseudonyms. This was sometimes because a couple of people would attack others, so any of those wanting to continue to comment on the post itself might change their name so as not to keep drawing the fire of those in a bad mood.

Most of us who comment anonymously have no ulterior motives and don't use it as a cloak to abuse others with relative impunity. I probably would have long ago switched to my real name except for having so consistently drawn the fire of SWMNBN.

#35 retriever on 2009-11-12 22:46 (Reply)

I thought you closed your blog to only invited guests.
I could never get on.
So I concluded that I was uninvited.
Am I wrong in thinking that?

#35.1 jappy on 2009-11-12 23:31 (Reply)

You were never uninvited, Jappy. I just didn't have any way to get the URL of the new one to you after I put the old one in carbonite. BD has it.

Hope your Dad isn't wearing you down too much...You care for him so faithfully, and he continues in my prayers. But your health and welfare in more of them, as my spouse and I know all too well how exhausting it can be (we had all four of the parents get sick and die over a four year stretch and we just about turned into zombies looking after them and visiting hospitals)

#35.1.1 retriever on 2009-11-13 00:47 (Reply)

It's distasteful really, someone preening away at another's misery. How very Christian. By the way, "she who must not be named" tried to comment on your blog to congratulate you for your generosity at Cassandra's money drive for the military but was unable to do so. If 'she who must not be named' marched around in a uniform would you perhaps be more Christian to her?

#35.2 Luther on 2009-11-13 15:13 (Reply)

If this is about Meta, allow me to make a comment or two.

I am a fan and supporter of Meta. I have been on both side with her - criticized and complimented.

If she has a fault, it is one of brutal honesty. Personally, I can deal with that. If one is intellectually honest with oneself, it is within one's power to accept or reject criticism or compliment.

She also doesn't suffer fools too well. Who should?

Anyone who has been around here long enough should know this. Anyone who does know this an baits her anyway is just being immature and a bit mean. If you do that and get slapped, maybe you deserved it. Baiting someone may be clever, but it does not advance the discussion of ideas or advance an on-line community. (I think that is what Luther was saying too.)

In any case, I am happy to converse with Meta anytime.

As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.

My two cents.......

#36 Barrett on 2009-11-13 00:10 (Reply)

If Meta were banned from all blog posts, I would also agree that went too far.

#37 Gringo on 2009-11-13 01:29 (Reply)

I step away for a few days and apparently missed a dust up with Meta...too bad...sounded like some fun!

#38 phil g on 2009-11-13 12:31 (Reply)

You didn't miss anything, phil. It was done swiftly and all evidence of my routing was deleted. The hosts were too afraid to do it themselves, so they hired out a hit man to do the job.
`

#38.1 Meta on 2009-11-13 22:36 (Reply)

Have enjoyed your page for a while here. I'm an old New England (Conn) boy who has lived in the mid-atlantic for 25 years. I enjoy the pictures and the New England mind set; it brings me back home.

Thank you for the work that this takes.

#39 Doug on 2009-11-13 14:00 (Reply)

Gosh. I feel bad when a particular smart assed urge strikes me to bad mouth moderates. I show up here and blurt out something and later feel like I tracked mud into the room. I guess I don't feel so bad now.

#40 Phil on 2009-11-13 16:56 (Reply)

Gee Phil,

I guess you can't be "one-of-those"...troll or not...kindly understand that the "shite" will, always, stick to the boots of one so obvious as you...

I, by my benchmark, won't directly reply...plse contact my personal agent...(meta)....

#40.1 Garry on 2009-11-14 02:48 (Reply)

Garry,

Meta, as your agent, suggests you email her straightaway. Dr. Mercury has her address.
She has many files for you to review.

#40.1.1 Luther on 2009-11-14 22:46 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, November 12. 2009